Podkletnov’s device



According to our Quantum Antigravity hypothesis, Podkletnov’s device contains two, out of the three elements composing gravity/antigravity:

  1. spin  (angular momentum) ;
  2. magnetic field,

and therefore it relies on Earth’s electric field. Earth is a spherical electric capacitor, so what we have here is approx. a magnetized toroid inside a capacitor :

In principle, Podkletnov device can produce antigravity.

However, it is amazing that it actually produces any!

What’s wrong?


For the maximum effect, the ring’s spin axis (angular momentum) should be horizontal. 

The geometry of magnetic field lines is far from perfect, to say the least.

Ideally, the entire ring should be immersed in magnetic field with lines parallel to the axis of spin.

It goes without saying that if natural gravity can be produced without any need for superconducting materials, so can be antigravity.

Replication of the Impulse Gravity Generator (IGG) experiment

Over the last two decades, publications have appeared repeatedly in which seemingly unusual interactions between superconductors and gravitational fields have been demonstrated.

One of the leading experiments can be found in the work of E. Podkletnov et al., [1] the so-called Impulse Gravity Generator (IGG) experiment. If Podkletnov and his collaborators actually found such a novel gravitational interaction, it would be a revolution in the physics of our time. Due to this possibly enormous importance, the structure of E. Podkletnov et al. [1], [2] was reconstructed in the Göde-Stiftung.

The work of T. Junker [3] contains information on the experimental structure used in the Göde-Stiftung to either prove or debunk the assertions of Russian scientists. The aim was to follow the guidelines of the original literature as closely as possible.

However, some additional modifications were made to further improve the experimental possibilities (described in [3] from point 6 ‘Setup for independent replication of the experiment’, p. 187 ff.). For the experiment, superconducting emitters with two or more layers are produced, cooled to 35 K and charged with various high-voltage generators to generate various characteristic discharge curves. Two discharge chambers are used to generate both superconductor-gas and superconductor-metal transitions.

A wide variety of sensors are used to measure vibrations and other disturbances. Thus it can be shown that the energy generated due to a possible anomalous radiation is nine orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest ‘gravitational pulse’ energy given in the work of E. Podkletnov et al.

Feynman’s Paradox and Electromagnetic Moments of Inertia

In Sect. 17_4 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics, V2, Feynman presents a “paradox.”

A superconducting solenoid is mounted on a plastic disc that is free to rotate on a frictionless axle. Around the periphery of the disc are embedded small, charged spheres. A constant current initially circulates in the solenoid. The disc is initially at rest. There is a magnetostatic field.

As the solenoid temperature rises toward room temperature, the coil loses its superconductivity. At some temperature the current begins to drop toward zero. dB/dt is nonzero as the current drops, and a circulating E field is induced. Each charged ball experiences a tangential electric force. There is a nonzero torque, and the disc begins to rotate. According to Feynman, here is the paradox:

the initial angular momentum is supposedly zero, and hence the final angular momentum should also be zero.

The article on the electromagnetic mass of a solenoid reveals the source of the confusion. The initial solenoidal current has a nonzero moment of inertia. Hence the initial angular momentum is not zero! The final angular momentum of the entire apparatus is partly due to the torque exerted by the solenoid on the disc as its current drops, and partly due to the induced emf on the peripheral charges.

We can simplify Feynman’s apparatus by dispensing with the charged balls. Again we suppose that the solenoid is initially superconducting and has a constant current per unit length (or constant, nonzero Ienclosed). Approximating the electromagnetic mass per unit length with that of an infinitely long solenoid, we can estimate the initial angular momentum. When the superconductivity is lost and the current begins to drop, the disc will begin to rotate.

Maxwell was aware of the inertia-like character of electric currents. In Article 547 of A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism he quotes Faraday: “…the first thought that arises in the mind is that the electricity circulates with something like momentum or inertia in the wire.”

An important aspect of the induction phenomenon pertains to the “self” (or reactive) force/torque experienced when the momentum of an electric current changes in time. In the variation on Feynman’s apparatus suggested above it is the “self” torque, experienced by the dropping solenoidal current in its own, (angular) acceleration-induced electric field, that physically accounts for the torque passed on to the plastic disc. Lenz’s law is, in one respect, a more general consequence of reactive forces and torques.

It is noteworthy that the angular momentum of a solenoid is not simply the sum of the angular momenta of the individual, circulating charges (or, as we now know, conduction electrons). For when Ienclosed is varied in time, the electrons experience interactive forces from the other electrons, in addition to their own “self” forces. The relative magnitude of these interactive forces depends upon the circuit’s geometry. A solenoid consisting of a kilometer of wire has significantly greater electromagnetic kinetic energy than does the same wire stretched out in a straight line.

The interactive forces are most dramatic when N charges, each with electromagnetic mass mElecMag, are superimposed. In this extreme (and idealized) case, the apparent electromagnetic mass of the collection is not simply NmElecMag. For each charge experiences not only its own, acceleration-induced electric field; it experiences the acceleration-induced electric fields of all the other charges as well. The apparent electromagnetic mass of any one charge is not simply mElecMag; it is NmElecMag. And the apparent electromagnetic mass of all N charges is N times this amount, or N2mElecMag!

Maxwell appears not to have appreciated the role of interactive forces in a current’s momentum, perhaps because the particulate nature of electricity hadn’t yet been discovered. In his mind, ‘momentum’ is an intrinsic property of a physical entity, independent of other entities in the environment. Thus he believed that the total momentum of a system is the sum of the momenta of its constituent parts. In Article 549 of his Treatise he states, “…if the phenomena are due to momentum, the momentum is certainly not that of the electricity in the wire, because the same wire, conveying the same current, exhibits effects which differ according to its form…”

The Faraday paradox

The paradox fall into two classes:

  1. Faraday’s law appears to predict that there will be zero EMF but there is a non-zero EMF.
  2. Faraday’s law appears to predict that there will be a non-zero EMF but there is zero EMF.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s